More

FSC Blasts ICM's Letter to ICANN

CANOGA PARK, Calif. — FSC Executive Director Diane Duke fired back at ICM's Stuart Lawley after he posted a response to FSC's letter it sent to ICANN this week.

“ICM’s attack on FSC seems disingenuous and a clear attempt to distract the ICANN Board from the real issues at hand and our request for transparency,” Duke told XBIZ.

ICM's letter claims that FSC’s comments “contain a variety of erroneous statements and repeated accusations that have been debated and refuted several times in the past seven years.”

Lawley says FSC’s letter addresses questions that have “been long asked and answered” by the board, that decided in Brussels that these issues shouldn’t be reopened.

“While the FSC is respected as a tireless supporter of First Amendment
rights in the U.S., it is not and has never been “the” trade association for the global adult entertainment industry. The board is well aware of this, as it was a topic of discussion between Dr. Twomey and Ms. Duke in the public forum in Lisbon in 2007,” the letter said.

Lawley, in his response, examines the definition for a .XXX sponsored community, saying it hasn’t changed in the last seven years and has been defined as online adult entertainment and service providers, who have voluntarily determined that a system of self-identification would be beneficial.

The letter also addresses the materials posted specify “the IFFOR baseline policies in detail and articulate the processes by which additional policies and procedures will be developed by its Policy Council that includes elected representatives of the sponsored community and that contain extensive protections for minority interests.”

Lawley said these processes ensure that ICM Registry lives up to its
committments to the sponsored community.

In discussing ICM’s pre-reservation service, Lawley said that “the assertion that webmasters were tricked into pre-reserving names by promises of any kind is
completely unfounded. The pre-reservation service permits registrants to identify any names submitted as defensive registrations.”

Lawley also addressed that claim that there isn’t enough information about the .XXX sTLD.

“The notion that either ICANN or the public has insufficient information regarding the
.XXX sTLD, ICM Registry, or IFFOR is patently absurd. Voluminous and detailed information
has been made available to the public in the course of ICANN’s consideration of the sTLD.”

ICM’s letter can be found in the public comment area of ICANN’s website.